Shevuot 8a — the Talmud in English

And again we considered this:

also forbidden sexual relations

is difficult.

What are the circumstances?

How could we have supposed that the inner goat would atone for this? For if

if

it is speaking

of an intentional act—

he is liable to capital punishment. If it is unintentional—

he is liable for an individual offering!?

And we answer as above:

intentionally, but they did not warn him. Or

or

unintentionally, but it did not become known to him

that he had sinned!

And likewise we considered this:

also bloodshed

is difficult.

What are the circumstances? If intentionally—

he is liable to capital punishment; if unintentionally—

he is liable to exile!?

And we answer: we find three possibilities:

intentionally, but they did not warn him; unintentionally, but it did not become known to him; or alternatively, in those who are not subject to exile [for example, where he threw a stone, and after he threw it, the slain person stuck out his head, and through this he was killed].

he threw a stone, and after he threw it, the person who was killed stuck out his head, and was killed as a result].

The Master said: Could it be that for these three impurities the goat atones? The verse says, “from impurities,” and not all impurities. What do we find that Scripture distinguished from the category of all impurities—

the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things,

for which one is liable for a variable offering,

so too here,

in the atonement of the inner goat,

the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, the words of Rabbi Judah.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “distinguished”

by Scripture this impurity?—

That one brings

a sin-offering for it

as a variable offering,

whereas for the other transgressions one brings a fixed sin-offering.

But the Gemara discusses:

Let us say,

perhaps we should say that the inner goat comes to atone for the sin of

idolatry. And what distinguished

this sin from the other sins—

The mnemonic is: idol worship, a woman who gave birth, a leper, and a nazirite.]

in that

one brings

for the sin of idolatry

a she-goat

alone,

and not a female sheep.

Whereas for the other sins one brings either a female sheep or a she-goat!?

Rav Kahana said: We are saying that Scripture distinguished

the matter

to be lenient,

for we must learn by what we find that Scripture distinguished a matter in which Scripture was lenient, such as the inner goat, which is a leniency for an individual, who need not expend his own money, but is atoned for by the communal offering.

But this,

the sin-offering of idolatry,

is a distinction to be stringent,

for Scripture was more stringent in its case than in the case of the other transgressors liable to excision: for an unintentional act of idolatry one must bring specifically a she-goat, and if he finds only a she-goat at an expensive price, he must bring it against his will.

And still we considered this:

And let us say

for the impurity of

a woman who has given birth

the goat comes to atone, for we find that Scripture distinguished it to be lenient from the other impurities,

in that she brings

an offering

as a variable offering,

and not a fixed offering. And the atonement of the goat on Yom Kippur would benefit her, for if Yom Kippur passed over her and she had still not brought her offering, she would be permitted to eat sacred food and would not need to bring an offering!?

Rav Hoshaya said: “For all their sins”

is written,

and not “for all their impurities.”

For the goat comes to atone or to protect from punishment for a sin, and it does not come to purify, whereas the offering of a woman who has given birth does not come for a sin, but in order to purify her so that she may eat sacred food.

And we object:

But according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, who says that a woman who has given birth is also a sinner [for when she is in labor she swears that she will no longer have relations with her husband], and her offering comes for a sin,

and her offering comes for a sin,

what is there to say?

And according to him it should be said that the inner goat comes to atone for a woman who has given birth, since we find that Scripture was lenient with regard to her through a variable offering.

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon follows his own view, for he says

in a baraita—

it is determined from its place

that the atonement of the inner goat is for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, as it is written, “And he shall atone for the holy place from impurities” —

from the impurities of the sacred place!

And still we considered this:

And let us say: a leper

is the one for whom the inner goat atones, for we find that Scripture was lenient with him by requiring a variable offering? And we answer:

Rav Hoshaya said: “For all their sins” is written, and not “for all their impurities.”

And a leper is not a sinner, but requires purification in order to eat sacred food.

But there is still a question to ask:

But according to Shmuel bar Nachmani, who says that afflictions come on account of seven things,

for slander, bloodshed, and so forth, and according to him a leper is a sinner,

what is there to say,

for his offering comes for a sin, and if so, perhaps the inner goat atones for him?

And we answer: Indeed, he became a leper because of his sins, but his offering does not come to atone for these sins, because

there, it is his affliction that atones for him,

the suffering of the affliction is what atones for the transgression,

and the offering

comes only in order

to be permitted

to the leper

with regard to sacred food,

to permit him to eat sacred food. And again it is possible to expound: “For all their sins,” and not for all their impurities! And again we considered this:

And let us say: an impure nazirite

is the one for whom the inner goat atones, for if he did not bring the sin-offering that he is obligated to bring before Yom Kippur, the atonement of the goat should benefit him so that he would not need to bring his individual offering? And we find

that Scripture distinguished

him to be lenient,

in that he brings turtledoves or young pigeons!?

Rav Hoshaya said: “For all their sins” is written, and not “for all their impurities.”

Whereas the sin-offering of a nazirite who became impure comes so that pure naziriteship should take effect for him, and not as atonement for a sin.

And we refute:

But according to Rabbi Eleazar Ha-Kappar, who says that a nazirite is also a sinner

because he afflicted himself by abstaining from wine,

what is there to say?

And we answer: Rabbi Eleazar Ha-Kappar

agrees with Rabbi Shimon,

who does not learn through a binyan av, but rather

says—

it is determined from its place

that the atonement of the goat is only for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

The Master said: Rabbi Shimon says—

it is determined from its place, for it says, “And he shall atone for the holy place from impurities,”

and the plain meaning of the verse indicates—

from the impurity of the holy place!

And we considered this: Surely

Rabbi Shimon has spoken well,

so why does Rabbi Judah disagree with him?

And we answer:

And Rabbi Judah could say to you—

that

verse, “And he shall atone for the holy place from impurities,”

is needed to him

for another matter: to teach us that the atonement of the Sanctuary shall be like the atonement of the Holy of Holies,

just as he performs inside and further inside,

as he sprinkles from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat once upward and seven times downward in the Holy of Holies,

so shall he perform

also

in the Sanctuary,

opposite the curtain!

And Rabbi Shimon

holds—

that

law, that one must sprinkle in the Sanctuary as in the Holy of Holies,

is derived from “And so shall he do”

“to the Tent of Meeting”

it emerges!

And Rabbi Judah

said—

if from that

verse, “And so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,”

I would have supposed

that one does not sprinkle in the Sanctuary opposite the curtain from the remainder of the blood that remained from the sprinkling in the Holy of Holies, but rather

let us bring other bull and goat, and perform

from their blood as was done with the first ones. Therefore

it informs us

the verse, “And he shall atone for the holy place,” that one does not bring another bull and goat, but sprinkles from the blood that remained from the sprinkling in the Holy of Holies.

And Rabbi Shimon

holds—this that is written

“And so shall he do to the Tent of Meeting,”

its meaning is

from it,

sprinkling from that same blood from which the sprinkling was performed inside

is indicated!

And therefore the verse “And he shall atone for the holy place from impurities” is superfluous, to teach that the atonement of the inner goat is only for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things.

The Master said: Could it be that this goat atones for all impurities in the sacred place? The verse says, “from their rebellious sins for all their sins”—

sins similar to rebellious sins: just as rebellious sins are intentional and are not subject to an offering, so too sins are unintentional and are not subject to an offering.

And we considered this: Surely

what is it

that are the sins of the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things that were excluded from the atonement of the goat because they are liable for an individual offering?—Those sins concerning impurity in which

there is

in the impurity

knowledge at the beginning, and there is knowledge at the end.

But

this

sinner,

liable for an offering

of an individual

is he!

And this is the atonement stated in the Torah. Why, then, was there room to say that he would be atoned for by the inner goat, until the tanna had to inform us that he is not atoned for by it?